<code>cu</code> and <code>vau</code> are separators (and they are optional).

<code>cu</code> and <code>vau</code> are separators (and they are optional).

−

<code>zo'e</code> is only a place-keeper: the argument whose place is filled in by it is not specified.

+

+

<code>zo'e</code> is only a place-keeper: the argument whose place is filled in but it is not specified. For didactical reasons, sometimes its meaning is rendered as “some…”, “unspecified…” etc. But in fact, most natural languages do not use such a place-keeper (because they are not based on predicate logic the way Lojban is), so in most cases, <code>zo'e</code> is not translated into English directly. An analogy with translating a decimal number representation into English: 2001 becomes “two tousend one”, so the notion of zero is not translated directly -- in fact, notion of zero is a rather late innovation (compared to language).

=== Flipping (is it something like “voice”?) ===

=== Flipping (is it something like “voice”?) ===

Revision as of 20:54, 8 August 2006

Contents

1 Introduction

Lojban is a constructed language. “Lojban was not designed primarily to be an international language, however, but rather as a linguistic tool for studying and understanding language. Its linguistic and computer applications make Lojban unique among international languages...” (NC:LojPer, page 15 par 1) -- the entire book is available also online, see the very bottom of the linked page.

It is an artificial language (and, unlike the more a posteriori Esperanto, it is rather of an a priori taste (Moo:LojPer)). It is a human language, capable of expressing everything. Its grammar uses (among others) things borrowed from mathematical logic, e.g. predicate-like structures. Although it does not make direct use of combinatory logic (even, from a combinatory logic / functional programming point of view, it uses also rather imperative ideas), but it may give hints and analogies, how combinatory logic can be useful in linguistics. I like searching Lojban examples illustrating the learned statements when learning about applicative universal grammar (although applicative universal grammar is not restricted to explain only a set of well-selected languages).

zo'e is only a place-keeper: the argument whose place is filled in but it is not specified. For didactical reasons, sometimes its meaning is rendered as “some…”, “unspecified…” etc. But in fact, most natural languages do not use such a place-keeper (because they are not based on predicate logic the way Lojban is), so in most cases, zo'e is not translated into English directly. An analogy with translating a decimal number representation into English: 2001 becomes “two tousend one”, so the notion of zero is not translated directly -- in fact, notion of zero is a rather late innovation (compared to language).

2.1 Flipping (is it something like “voice”?)

That is sold by you to me for some price

ta

cu

se vecnu

do

mi

zo'e

vau

x1

predicate

x2

x3

x4

Comparing vecnu and se vecnu, it is of taste combinator of combinatory logic.
Comparing structure:

x1

cu

predicate

x2

x3

x4

vau

do

vecnu

ta

mi

zo'e

ta

se vecnu

do

To illustrate this analogy, I write a semi-Lojban-semi-CL version:

do cu vecnu ta mi zo'e vau

ta cu (vecnu) do mi zo'e vau

2.2 Repeating

Words mi, do correspond to English personal pronouns I (me), you. Lojban has other similar words, e.g. ri. Word ri fills in an argument (of the predicate) which repeats the previous argument.

Somebody

talks

to somebody

about something

in some language

x1

predicate

x2

x3

x4

A little vocabulary:

mi

I, me

do

you

la lojban.

Lojban

tavla

talk

Syntax:

I talk to you about the Lojban language in Lojban

mi

cu

tavla

do

la lojban.

la lojban.

vau

x1

predicate

x2

x3

x4

mi cu tavla do la lojban. la lojban. vau

The word ri helps us avoiding repeating the argument of predicate in this case:

mi cu tavla do la lojban. ri vau

I think, it is a rather imperative solution (using some notion of state / memory), compared to the combinator of combinatory logic, but in this case, it has the same effect. If Lojban used combinators, I should write (using the elementary duplicator ):

(mi cu tavla do) la lojban. vau

It seems to me even better to modify only the predicate directly, not an arbitrary subexpression of the sentence -- if it is possible. Thus the deferred combinator helps us even more here:

mi cu (tavla) do la lojban. vau

-sequences could be used also for avoiding the many-many repeating zo'e words (of course, if Lojban used combinators):

I talk.

(Not specified, to whom, about what topic, in what language!)

mi cu tavla zo'e zo'e zo'e vau

What could help us in lambda calculus?

λfxy.fxyyy

mi cu (tavla) zo'e vau

In combinatory logic, makes that (let us note the little slant of the indices: powered combinator is deferred here, not deferred combinator is powered!):